The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Household Baptisms

Matthew 3:9,


This was spoken to "many" of the Pharisees and Saducees, right (v 7)? Why was it not spoken to "all" of the people, but only a "part" of those who were of the class that actively opposed the mission of Christ? This distinction is brought out quite forcefully in Mk 12:37-38, where the common people were hearing the words of Christ gladly even at the very time that Christ was warning them to beware of the zealots for self-righteousness. Does that mean that the Jews of that day were all converted? I would hardly say that -- but they were all circumcised and they all had the sign of regeneration in their flesh. Further, as Jesus himself pointed out to the woman at the well, "salvation is of the Jews" (Jn 4:24). But even at that it is important to view that "generation of vipers" in light of the Redemptive Historical scheme God decreed. It was this generation of which you speak that Isaiah the prophet spoke and the Psalmist spoke when referring to the hardness that would come upon Israel.

Of course Galatians 3 actually supports my position rather than yours, when we understand it in its context.

In Gal ch. 3, Paul was arguing against the self-righteousness of the Judaizers of that day. He was not contrasting those who had faith with Pagans, but rather he was contrasting those who depended entirely upon the righteousness of Christ with those who had some measure of trust in self-righteousness. Thus those who depend upon their own works cannot be the children of Abraham; only those who place their faith in Christ's doing and dying are the true children of Abraham. But Paul did not go on to say "and of course your children are trusting their own righteousness." In fact, it was a child's humble reliance upon others that Christ so clearly commended in Matt. 19:14 and parallel passages.

So, once again, I would simply point out that you may be confusing the terms "usually" and "normally" for "always." There is not a paedobaptist of whom I am aware -- and certainly no reformed paedobaptist -- who maintains that all the children of believers are elect head-for-head. It may be easier to argue against that position; but it is not the position I have espoused.

Now I have a question for you or any other antipaedobaptist who wishes to undertake it. Is there an example anywhere in the NT of a family coming to Christ and one or more members of that family being refused baptism for any reason, including personal unbelief? Or alternatively, is there an example in Scripture anywhere of a child who grew up in a home where papa and mama were baptized, but the child was overlooked only to be baptized later? This does not mean that the child grew up in a Jewish home and was or was not circumcised earlier. The example must be of one who grew up in a self-consciously Christian home and the child only later "came to faith in Christ" and was then subsequently to his coming to faith baptized. I am not aware of any such example, and yet in our American culture that is accepted as the norm among many evangelicals.